Monday’s opening day of the preliminary hearing in the Aurora theater shooting murder case offered numerous new insights into the tragedy and the evidence against James Holmes. In this morning’s Denver Post, we have two stories — one about the investigation details revealed in court Monday and another about the heroic actions of police officers the morning of the shooting. (Click here to read an extended version of that story.)

But, after nearly six hours of testimony Monday, there were details that did not find their way into one of those two stories. Here are seven notes from Day 1 of the preliminary hearing:

1. A curious cross-examination.

The most significant moment in the preliminary hearing may have also been its most oddly out of place. Prosecutors Monday called two doctors from the Arapahoe County coroner’s office to testify about the wounds suffered by the victims slain in the shooting. After the first doctor testified, Holmes’ attorneys did not ask any questions.

In many instances throughout the day, the detectives and investigators testifying on behalf of the prosecution left little for the defense team to do. Those witnesses were there to describe the scene; they did not say anything that directly implicated Holmes. And, thus, their testimony meant there was little for the defense to rebut.

So it was somewhat unexpected when, after prosecutors finished questioning Arapahoe County Coroner Michael Dobersen, defense attorney Daniel King rose to ask some questions of his own. Where he went with his questions was even more unexpected.

King asked how long the autopsies took — they lasted between an hour and a half and over four hours. He asked about Dobersen’s experience as a coroner — Dobersen is one of the most respected forensic pathologists in the nation.

And then King asked whether anything about the wounds Dobersen observed could speak to the state of mind of the person who inflicted them. What kinds of stories do bullet holes tell? Dobersen seemed puzzled.

“You’re not drawing any conclusions about the mental state of the perpetrators by your autopsy, are you?” King asked.

“No,” Dobersen responded.

It was the best signal yet that the defense likely intends to offer an insanity defense in the case. Its odd placement in the hearing only made it stand out that much more clearly.